Talk:Far Beyond the Stars (episode)
Episode talk page Maintenance links __TOC__ Is there really a reference to Jesus in this episode? I didn't catch it, what was the line? Jaf 15:36, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)Jaf Come on, Benny, your hero's a Negro captain. The head of a space station, for Christ's sake. - Douglas Pabst. Tough Little Ship 15:39, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC) Hmmm, now based on how he words that should we put it under people or slang. Maybe both? Actually, if we want to really be picky, Chirst is a title meaning son of God and dispite there only be one claimed in our history we can't really call it a reference to Jesus the man. :) Jaf 16:04, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)Jaf :Perhaps a little too off-topic but I believe the statement that Christ means son of God is an over-simplification. not everybody would ascribe that exact meaning to the word Christ even when used in its original non-slang historical context. Background information Does anyone know if the drawing of the little girl and the alien/robot (I can't remember which it was, but the title was "Please Take me with You") is a reference to anything in particular? Given the way every single thing in Little Green Men was an in-joke or allusion of some kind, I can't believe it was just thrown in there. --Schrei 01:18, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC) Testimony This episode is one my all-time favourite ST shows. Utterly profound! Brings a tear to my eye thinking about it. Everything is perfect. The hommage to the original creators of the SF genre is lovely. And the attitude of the African American castmembers (and the use of the N-word) is a well-deserved kick in the pants to all those who hypocrtitically harrumphed over Avery Brooks being captain. Yet he was one of the finest actors on ST, and directed this difficult episode wonderfully too! Wolf514 18:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Dead link During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case! If the dead link is fixed, please also remove this comment. * http://www.st-hypertext.com/ds9-6/stars.html ** In Far Beyond the Stars on Sun May 07 21:04:26 2006, 404 Not Found ** In Far Beyond the Stars on Tue May 30 19:34:35 2006, 404 Not Found --HighwindBot 17:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC) DC Fontana? Is there any evidence to suggest that "K.C. Hunter" (the character based on Major Kira) is in homage to D.C. Fontana, the TOS writer? Both had to use their initials to cover the fact that they were female in a period that didn't accept female sci-fi writers. It's a neat parallel, if nothing else. -AJM Bop shoo wop There's a moment (at about 16:56 in the episode on the DVD) where "Benny" is walking down the street with 3 kids singing a doo-wop type of song. Now, it's slower and a little more "swinging", but to me the melody sounds exactly like the main tune in the theme song to "Little Shop of Horrors". Did the music supervisor for the song "accidentally steal" the melody due to the tune being in his/her subconsious, much like George Harrison accidentally stole "He's So Fine" when writing "My Sweet Lord"? Or is it an intentional homage/easter egg? - Ugliness Man 08:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC) :According to startrek.com, the songs heard in this episode are Glow Worm, Walking My Baby Back Home, Sweet Lorraine, Everything I Have is Yours, Angel Face, Blue Light Boogie, Please Love Me and The K.C. Blues. Maybe it is one of those songs. --Jörg 08:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC) what year is it? the sidebar lists this episode as occuring in 1953...where did that come from? While Stalin might have died in 1953, and the Bradbury movie was released in 1953, what proof is there that this episode occured in that year? Ranger Bill XX 22:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC) :The script states that it is 1953. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC) ::It's also seen on screen: The cover of an issue of Galaxy (magazine) sold in the episode is dated "September 1953". --Jörg 12:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC) breaking the 4. wall Maybe someone should mention that this is the only Star Trek episode ever to directly break the 4. wall. TOS allways broke the 4. wall at the end of every episode by having Spock, Kirk and McCoy explain to the viewer the moral of the episode and relating it to events of the present time (the 60's). But this is the first episode that openly has a carachter becoming aware of the fact that he is a carachter. Actually the preacher also breaks the 4. wall as he is the one who tells Sisko that he is just a Carachter in a Science Fiction. :What? --OuroborosCobra talk 23:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC) ::He's probably referring to the way that the Episode nearly reveals the fictitious nature of the franchise, making it really seem as if it is an imagination. Kind of Similar to the reference Picard makes in Ship in a Bottle, where he says there existance may be no more than an imagination. ::Although I do not think that this completely brakes the 4th wall, as my prospective simply revealed that the whole thing was an illusion sent by the prophets, and the shot at the end was simply a reminder to Sisko that Benny Russle is a part of him. --Nmajmani 01:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC) :::Benny Russell is fiction too so there's no 4th wall breakage at all. 76.200.152.98 08:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC) :::User:76.200.152.98, I think the point being made is that Benjamin Sisko, a fictional character, becomes aware, towards the end of the episode, that he may in fact be a fictional character. --Jayunderscorezero 10:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC) ::::I think that is the point, yes, Sisko, as a fictional character, becomes aware of his own (possibly) fictional existence. However, this does not constitute a break of the 4th wall. It's an example of what's known as anti-illusionism. Any fictitious text (or film, show etc), by its mere existence as fiction creates a skein of make-belief which the audience accepts by default, i.e. an illusion that what is happening is real within the world established in the text (hence the term 'illusionism'). When that skein is broken down however, the illusionism is shattered, and the audience is explicitly reminded that they are reading/watching a constructed reality. Now, breaking the 4th wall is one type of anti-illusionistic practice, but there are many many others, and what happens in this episode is not a break in the 4th wall. Anti-illusionism occurs whenever the division between the world of the characters and the world of the reader is in some way broken-down, so that both characters and reader come to occupy the same ontological 'zone' - they come to exist in the same world, if only for a moment. A character becoming aware of his own fictional existence is a perfect example, because for him to acknowledge that existence, he must momentarily enter the world of the audience and look at himself as a purely constructed textual entity. A break of the 4th wall however, whilst it is anti-illusionistic, has nothing to do with a character's realisation of his own status within the fictional world, it is simply an acknowledgement of the audience from within the fictional text itself. So, for example, Fight Club breaks the 4th wall all the time, and is hence anti-illusionistic, so do many of Shakespeare's plays, and most of Bertold Brecht's work - but none of them have characters acknowledging that they are fictional characters. The gist of it is that every break of the 4th wall is anti-illusionistic, but not every example of anti-illusionism must be a break in the 4th wall. This episode comes close to anti-illusionism, and, especially, come close to breaking the 4th wall, so the difference should be reasonably apparent to anyone familiar with these episodes. And before anyone asks, don't worry, I'm an English lecturer and my area of expertise (for want of a better expression) is narratology and anti-illusionism. – Bertaut talk 19:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)